Saturday, April 02, 2016

Clinton’s Close Ties to the Oil, Coal and Gas Industry

Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign issued the following yesterday:

Clinton’s Close Ties to the Oil, Coal and Gas Industry

April 1, 2016

NEW YORK – The Clinton campaign on Friday held a
conference call with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to discuss
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s record on clean energy and climate change.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign left out some important facts.

In 2001, Clinton voted
to kill a measure backed by most Democrats and spearheaded by Sen. Bill
Nelson that would have restricted drilling off the coast of Florida.
Sanders voted for the restrictions.
During the 2006
election, Clinton accepted $74,000 from oil and gas interests while
running for re-election that year. According to a scorecard of Senate
votes compiled by the League of Conservation Voters, Clinton cast twovotes in support of 2006 legislation to vastly expand drilling in the Gulf. Those votes put her on the oppositeside of then-Sen. Barack Obama. That same year, Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against a measure in the House of Representatives to expand offshore drilling.

A year later, as secretary of state, she approved the Alberta Clipper,
a tar sands pipeline that Sen. Sanders opposes. The Clinton-led
department said the pipeline would “advance a number of strategic
interests.” Environmental groups such as Earthjustice told Reuters:
“It means large amounts of more air pollution, large amounts of water
pollution and extra [greenhouse gases] because more energy is required
to convert this [heavy oil] into a refined, usable petroleum product.”

In 2010, Secretary Clinton remarked
that she was ultimately “inclined to approve” Keystone XL, a pipeline
that would transport tar sands oil from Canada. During the campaign,
after strong opposition from environmental organizations, Secretary
Clinton eventually came out in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, not
because of her concerns about climate change, but because she viewed it
as a “distraction.”

During her time leading the State Department, the agency also signed the “U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement,” a deal it said
would help energy companies expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico. The State Department said the pact would help energy
corporations expand offshore drilling and “unlock areas for exploration
and exploitation” in locations between the two countries. The agency
said the deal will make “nearly 1.5 million acres of the Outer
Continental Shelf more attractive” to energy companies.

In her 2016 bid, Clinton has relied on a slew of current and former advocates for the oil and gas industry for fundraising support, including Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. As recently as this year, Tony Podesta has lobbied
for BP, the company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. He
has also lobbied for a company partly-owned by ExxonMobil. Podesta has raised over $130,000 for Clinton’s campaign, according to federal electionrecords. According to public filings,
approximately one in 15 dollars given to Priorities USA Action, a Super
PAC coordinating directly with Secretary Clinton’s campaign, came from
oil, gas and coal interests.
Oil and gas companies have contributed
more than $700,000 to Clinton’s campaigns throughout her political
career, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive
Politics.

“Bernie believes it is critical that the next president acts to curb
the worst effects of climate change by acting boldly to move our energy
system away from fossil fuels,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign
manager. “He also believes you cannot take on an industry if you take
their money. If the Clinton campaign wants to argue that industry
lobbyists giving thousands of dollars to her campaign won’t affect her
decisions if she’s elected, that’s fine. But to call us liars for
pointing out basic facts about the secretary’s fundraising is deeply
cynical and very disappointing. Secretary Clinton owes Sen. Sanders an
apology.”

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.